> Even more interesting: > Received: from netsys.com (NETSYS.COM [199.201.233.10]) > by phxby.engr.usu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3F11443EF > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 02:44:14 > -0600 (MDT) > Received: from NETSYS.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) > by netsys.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h827wOx20101; > Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:58:24 -0400 (EDT) > Received: from phxby.engr.usu.edu (phxby.engr.usu.edu [129.123.21.101]) > by netsys.com (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h827uUE19665 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:56:30 > -0400 (EDT) > Received: by phxby.engr.usu.edu (Postfix, from userid 501) > id 6607B14438C; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 01:56:24 -0600 (MDT) > > I believe that for infosec stuffs, the faster information being > distributed/sent is the better. Late putting patch just because the > information come almost 1 hour later after it is sent might be > catastropic.
I don't know about catastrophic, but it certainly should be faster. I personally find the speed of this list unacceptable. For large lists with high volume, a list server written in a scripting language like python isn't going to cut it, IMHO. I vote for qmail w/ ezmlm(-idx). (That is, if we get a vote in the matter.) tim _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
